
,5^/ 



D 515 
.S27 
ICopy 1 



GERMANY and the 
EUROPEAN WAR 

By ALBERT SAUVEDR 



Price, 35 Cents 



THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THIS 

PAMPHLET WILL BE DONATED TO THE 

FUNDS NOW BEING RAISED FOR 

THE BELGIAN REFUGEES 



UTS 



GERMANY AND THE 

EUROPEAN WAR 



By ALBERT SAUVEUR 



? 



THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF 
THIS PAMPHLET WILL BE DONATED 
TO THE FUNDS NOW BEING RAISED 
FOR THE BELGIAN REFUGEES 

E=l 



samuel usher 
Boston, Massachusetts 









-^jl 



GERMANY AND THE EUROPEAN WAR 

By ALBERT SAUVEUR 

WE had been told by Professor Kuno Francke* 
that it was easy to see why American pub- 
lic opinion should have condemned by an over- 
whelming majority the diplomats of Austria and 
Germany, but Professor Hugo Miinsterbergj 
actually tells us the reason why: It is because 
Americans are " suggestible " and like uniformity 
in ideas. Some pro-English paper stated the case 
in favor of England and her allies, and, like 
Panurge's sheep, the other papers and the Ameri- 
can public blindly followed the same course — a 
poor compliment paid to American intelligence, 
and not likely to win sympathy for the German 
cause. 

There is something pathetic in the efforts of 
loyal Germans to defend the course pursued by 
their country, for one cannot help reading between 
the lines that they themselves realize the hopeless- 
ness of their task. It has been said that no one 
yet had been able to present the German side of 



* Boston Herald, August 24, 1914. 

f'The War and America," by Hugo Miinsterberg. D. 
Appleton & Co. New York, 19 14. 

3 



4 Germany and the European War 

this momentous question with sufficient ability to 
carry conviction. The explanation is obvious: 
Their cause is so bad that neither talent nor 
patriotism will avail. They are forced to have 
recourse to historical and other inaccuracies, 
extravagant statements, unwarranted conclusions, 
and, above all, to sophistry. 

The claims that have been made in defense of 
Germany may be classified and concisely con- 
sidered as follows. 



CLAIM I 

GERMANY WAS NOT THE AGGRESSOR 

" It is a sin against the spirit of history to de- 
nounce Germany as the aggressor in this war," 
writes Professor Miinsterberg, but he is unable to 
give a single acceptable reason to support his con- 
tention. The evidences pointing unmistakably 
to Germany being the aggressor are so numerous 
and convincing as to leave no room for doubt on 
this vital point in placing responsibilities where 
they belong. A careful perusal of both the Eng- 
lish and German " White Papers " will suffice to 
decide that question. Both of these official docu- 
ments afford positive proof that England made 
every possible effort first to prevent a war between 
Austria and Servia and later to localize the conflict. 
Germany, on the contrary, by insisting from the 
start that there should be no diplomatic interven- 
tion between Servia and her ally, Austria, and more 
especially by refusing to join England in a last 
effort at a peaceful settlement of the controversy, 
made a European war unavoidable. The irrefut- 
able facts remain, first, that Austria with the 
knowledge and consent of Germany presented to 
Servia an ultimatum so worded that she knew that 
the conditions imposed could not be complied with 



6 Germany and the European War 

by any nation retaining a spark of self-respect; 
second, that even after Servia had accepted Aus- 
tria's ultimatum with the single exception of the 
most offensive clause, which she proposed to sub- 
mit to arbitration, Austria, with Germany's con- 
sent, proclaimed herself unsatisfied and immediately 
declared war on Servia; third, that Germany and 
Austria knew that a war with Servia meant a war 
with Russia, and that a war with Russia meant in 
turn a general European conflagration; fourth, 
that Germany declared war on Russia, started the 
invasion of France before declaring war, and, by 
refusing to respect the neutrality of Belgium, to 
which she was solemnly pledged, forced both 
Belgium and England into the war. In the face 
of so flagrant a violation of all sentiments making 
for peace, no sophistry will avail in attempting 
to protect Germany from the odium of being 
responsible for the greatest calamity the civilized 
world has ever seen. 

Although Professor Miinsterberg asks, " Was 
ever a war more natural, more unavoidable? " 
he is forced to admit that at the critical moment it 
was at least in Germany's power to delay it. He 
writes, in answer to the question, " Would not this 
war have been avoided if Germany had forced 
Austi'ia to give up the punitive expedition against 
Servia? " : "It would not ha.ve prevented the war, 
but simply postponed it for possibly a year until 



Germany and the European War 7 

the Russian preparations for the war, with French 
money, had been completed and the chances against 
Germany would have been still greater." At 
the momentous hour preceding the declaration of 
war by Austria against Servia, the Kaiser un- 
doubtedly had it in his power to prevent the 
breaking of European peace, but he deliberately 
selected war. Obviously, he did not then expect 
that England would take arms with France and 
Russia, nor did he anticipate any serious resistance 
on the part of the Belgians, while he counted on the 
assistance of his ally, Italy. It is hardly to be 
doubted that, if he could have foreseen such dif- 
ficulties, peace and not war would have been his 
choice. But he thought the moment opportune 
to carry on a military campaign, for which Ger- 
many had so long prepared herself with consum- 
mate skill and extraordinary energy and at tremen- 
dous national sacrifices. The scheme was a 
marvelously simple one: she would rush her fight- 
ing machine into France via Belgium as the most 
direct and convenient way of travel, and, with the 
assistance of Italy, quickly crush unprepared 
France. Meanwhile Austria was to oppose slow- 
moving Russia until the German machine, having 
completed its work in France, could come to the 
rescue and crush the Russians. How very easy 
it does sound! And after the victory, what glori- 
ous days for western civilization! Think of the 



8 Germany and the European War 

Teutons as rulers of Europe and, soon, of the world! 
Of the forcible feeding of German culture to every 
nation in Christendom! Think of troublesome 
France and French civilization once for all re- 
duced to a negligible quantity! Think of her 
colonies flourishing under German benevolent and 
beneficent rule! Think of England, now a second- 
class power, no longer standing in the way of the 
commercial expansion of the Fatherland! Think 
of poor democracy in Europe! Think of the glori- 
ous days for German militarism and the house of 
Hohenzollern! Think of the swelling bosom and 
trailing saber of the swaggering German officer! 
Surely the game was worth the candle ! 

It must have been a rude awakening to have 
found at the outset such skillfully pre-arranged 
plans so completely disarranged by Belgium's 
" indiscretion " in resisting the passage through 
her territory of the German war machine; by 
England's so forgetting her family ties and her 
debt to German culture as to rise against the in- 
vader because of a difference of opinion as to the 
value of a "scrap of paper"; and finally by 
" traitorous " Italy* failing to live up to her obli- 
gations ! 



* Italy did not, as a matter of fact, fail to live up to her 
obligations, for it was only in case Germany and Austria 
were attacked that she was bound to come to their assistance. 



CLAIM II 
FRENCH AGGRESSION 

We are told that Germany was forced into the 
war, partly at least, because of French aggression 
as expressed by her desire to recover her lost prov- 
inces of Alsace and Lorraine — a natural enough 
sentiment which the Germans are in the habit of 
describing as a " thirst for revenge." It is un- 
doubtedly true that France has never ceased to 
mourn the loss of a part of her territory, and to 
hope for the coming of the day when it might be 
restored to her. Does not so legitimate a feeling 
call for the respect rather than the blame of any 
man, regardless of nationality, who is a lover of his 
country? In spite of the existence of that most 
excusable sentiment, it must be obvious to the un- 
biased observer that France did not want war, that 
for many years she has done her utmost to preserve 
the peace of Europe, at times accepting humilia- 
tion in order to avoid a conflict with Germany. 
During the eventful days that preceded the present 
conflict, she heartily cooperated with England in 
every diplomatic move likely to help the main- 
tenance of peace. 

We are told by Professor Munsterberg that 

9 



lo Germany and the European War 

Germany declared war on France " because France 
began mobilizing and refused to promise she would 
keep neutral during a German-Russian war." 
But Germany well knew, did she not, that France 
was solemnly bound by her treaty with Russia to 
stand by her in case she was attacked by Germany 
and Austria? Or did she think that France should 
have regarded that treaty as another " scrap of 
paper "? Surely Germany knew that if France had 
failed her ally it would have resulted in the loss of 
her national honor and her obliteration as a world's 
power. It is not thinkable that Germany could 
have had any doubt that her declaration of war 
against Russia necessarily meant also war with 
France. How can Professor Miinsterberg expect 
his readers to believe that, if the German Emperor 
had prevented Austria from declaring war on Ser- 
via, as he himself admits it was in the Emperor's 
power to do, France and Russia would have 
attacked Germany in " possibly a year "? Such 
claim is absolutely opposed to the attitude of the 
French republic; it is contrary to the conduct of 
the Triple Entente since its existence. The con- 
tention is so obviously imaginary, so manifestly 
needed to defend Germany's course, that it hardly 
deserves serious consideration. 

Professor Miinsterberg writes, " Even the techni- 
cal war-making was begun by Russia and France. 
The Russian and French troops crossed the fron- 



Germany and the European War il 

tiers and made prisoners before Germany took any 
warlike step." 

So long as Professor Munsterberg offers no evi- 
dence to sustain his position, the mere statement of 
it carries with it little weight. One may well doubt 
the accuracy of his claim, which is opposed by 
the fact that France delayed her mobilization 
as long as safety permitted, and that her army was 
instructed to remain at a distance of some ten 
kilometers from the frontiers for the very purpose of 
avoiding such incidents as these. Indeed, it was 
essential to the victory of the German arms that 
Germany should strike first, before France had 
time to mobilize ; that was obviously her intention ; 
that is what she did. She never intended to wait 
until France had technically begun the war-making. 
Indeed, she invaded France, Belgium, and Luxem- 
burg before declaring war, not to make a few prison- 
ers, but to kill and destroy, for, as it is now realized 
more than ever, it was of supreme importance for 
her to strike at France quickly, while that country 
was still unprepared. 

With these facts before us, how hollow and mean- 
ingless the unsupported claim that the war was 
technically started by Russia and France! That 
assertion may probably be safely tucked away 
with Germany's contention that she invaded 
Belgium because she had proofs of the intention of 
France to violate that country, some French officers 



12 Germany and the European War 

having been seen in an automobile in southern 
Belgium, and with many other such fantastic 
claims. 

We have been told that since the Franco- 
German War of 1870 the attitude of Germany 
toward France had been one of friendship and good- 
will. Professor Francke, for instance, writes, 
" Germany's policy toward France these forty- 
three years has been one of utmost restraint and 
forbearance, and has been dictated by the one 
desire of making her forget the loss of the two 
provinces." One is tempted to ask whether he 
intended to be facetious when he made such state- 
ment. Every Franco-German incident which has 
occurred since the war of 1870 is a refutation of 
Professor Francke's claim of German friendly 
attitude. That Germany has ever been ready, on 
the contrary, to stab France whenever possible 
to do so with reasonable safety and without arousing 
the indignation of civilized nations must be ob- 
vious to the student of history. As a matter of 
fact, has not Germany played toward France the 
part of a bully? 

The Franco-German relations since the war of 
1870 have been accurately and clearly outlined in 
the Springfield Republican for August 22. As 
pointed out in that editorial, Bismarck's first 
concern after the Franco-Prussian war was to keep 
France weak and isolated. In 1875 he was plan- 



Germany and the European War 13 

ning to attack her again, on the ground that she 
had not been sufficiently demoHshed four years be- 
fore, intending this time to " bleed France white," 
to use his own brutal words. And it was chiefly 
through the intervention of Russia that France 
escaped this appalling calamity. 

Russia and England were now alarmed, and their 
fears paved the way first for the Franco-Russian 
alliance, and later for the Triple Entente, es- 
sentially defensive agreements intended for mutual 
protection against the growing and despotic am- 
bition of Germany. The Morocco incident in 
1905, which led to the humiliation of France 
through her dismissal of Delcass6, at the time her 
minister of foreign affairs, at the dictation of Ger- 
many, is an edifying instance of Germany's good- 
will, and proves France's earnest desire to maintain 
peace. Again in 191 1, when Germany, taking 
advantage of an apparent weakness in the Triple 
Entente, sent a warship to Agadir, war was only 
avoided through the firmness of England's attitude. 
Who is there that would doubt that notwithstand- 
ing the generous feelings of Germany towards 
France now claimed by Professor Francke to have 
existed for the last forty-three years, France as a 
world power would have ceased to exist long ago 
if Germany could have had her own way? The 
incontestable truth is that Germany has never been 
willing to tolerate a powerful France, that the 



14 Germany and the European War 

speedy recovery of that country after the war of 
1870 was a source of chagrin and alarm to Germany, 
that the final and complete destruction of France 
as a world power has always been one of the pivotal 
points of Germany's diplomacy. 

We have also heard that Germany's attitude 
towards the conquered provinces of Alsace and 
Lorraine had always been a benevolent one. 
Professor Francke notably makes that statement. 
Again it is difficult to believe that he is serious. 
The Zabern incident to which he refers is a good 
instance of the benevolence of the German domina- 
tion in Alsace-Lorraine. We are told that these 
two French provinces had been German until the 
seventeenth century, but is not the essential point 
the fact that when torn away from France they were 
inhabited by Frenchmen whose patriotism and love 
for France was not excelled by the feelings of the 
inhabitants of any other portion of the French 
republic, and that after forty-three years of Ger- 
manic rule their supreme desire is to become once 
more French citizens? 

Both Professors Miinsterberg and Francke refer 
to the recent French military law requiring every 
Frenchman to serve three years instead of two in 
the active army. " France armed," Professor 
Miinsterberg tells us, " as no civilized nation ever 
armed before; even the educated had to serve 
three years in the army, against the one year's 



Germany and the European War 15 

service in Germany. For decades the French did 
not allow Germany an hour to rest without armor." 
According to Professor Francke, this new French 
military law was equivalent to mobilization, and 
an evident indication that France was getting 
ready to strike at Germany. These statements 
are certainly extraordinary, and afford an illuminat- 
ing insight of the German attitude towards France. 
For her to attempt the maintenance of a powerful 
army was a crime of l^se-Germany. It should be 
realized that even after this tremendous sacrifice 
on the part of France her army still remained 
numerically inferior to that of Germany; that the 
sacrifice was imposed upon her because of the 
ever-increasing size of the German army, due 
primarily to Germany's increasing population, 
while her own remained nearly stationary. Profes- 
sor Francke might as well contend that France's 
maintenance of any army at all was a proof of evil 
intentions against Germany. 



CLAIM III 
ENGLISH AGGRESSION 

Much indignation is expressed against England 
for having so forgotten family ties as to take up 
arms against Germany. " It is the greatest grief 
of the German people," writes Professor Miinster- 
berg, " that England, in the moment when the 
chances for Germany seemed bad, took hold of the 
convenient chance to strike the commercial rival, 
destroyed the slowly built-up friendship, and de- 
clared war against the cousins on the continent." 
One should not go to war with one's relatives for a 
" scrap of paper." One should be more considerate 
and close one's eyes on their escapades. Had not 
England interfered and Belgium been so indis- 
crete, Germany believes that she could have easily 
disposed of France and Russia and she would have 
emerged from the struggle with greatly increased 
power. But should not one rejoice at the prosperity 
of one's cousins, and should not one welcome them 
as nearer neighbors? 

We are told that the war was further forced upon 
Germany because of England's jealousy of her 
commercial growth and prosperity. Commercial 
rivalry between nations is not to be denied, nor is it 
to be found fault with. That England should like 

i6 



Germany and the European War 17 

a larger share of the world's commerce even at the 
expense of Germany's share can readily be con- 
ceded. But it does not follow that England was 
ready to plunge Europe into this terrible war in 
order to satisfy her commercial cravings. Indeed, 
her conduct, as well as that of France, since the 
Triple Entente came into existence, has clearly 
demonstrated that, like France, she was most 
anxious to preserve peace. 

If there was a salient feature during the diploma- 
tic activity that preceded the outbreak of the war, 
it was England's earnest desire and earnest efforts 
to maintain peace. She was forced into the war 
through the violation by Germany of the neutrality 
of Belgium. The facts speak for themselves, and 
they speak so forcibly as to render any defense 
of England's course absolutely unnecessary. In 
Professor Miinsterberg's opinion, England made " a 
great historical blunder," the statement being 
accompanied by the veiled threat that " if the 
miraculous occurs, and Germany wins against the 
world, England's mistake will be evident." Whether 
England made or not a blunder is to a great extent 
a matter of point of view and of one's conception 
of what constitute the obligations of nations. 



CLAIM IV 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION 

It is said that the war was forced upon Germany 
by Russian aggression as expressed by the tradi- 
tional hatred of the Slav for the Teuton, but no 
evidences whatever are given showing that Russia 
was desirous of going to war. On the contrary, 
she unhesitatingly joined England and France in 
the diplomatic moves that preceded the out- 
break of hostilities, and gave every evidence of her 
desire to maintain peace consistent with her pres- 
tige and national honor. 

Professor Miinsterberg writes that Russia spent 
billions " to be ready to push the steam roller of 
her gigantic population over the German frontier." 
Is that a proof of Russia's aggression in the present 
conflict? Is it another offense of lese-Germany? 
Germany also has spent billions in the building of a 
steam roller to be pushed over the French or Rus- 
sian frontier as needed. The argument works 
both ways, and, so tar as throwing any light on the 
respective responsibilities of Germany and Russia 
is concerned, it may, therefore, be dismissed. 

In the absence of any supporting evidence, 
Professor Miinsterberg's contention that, if Ger- 

i8 



Germany and the European War 19 

many had refrained from going to war at this time, 
Russia, with France, would sooner or later — 
" possibly in a year " — have attacked Germany, 
has no significance. 



CLAIM V 

GERMANY IS FIGHTING TO PROTECT EUROPE 
FROM SLAVIC DOMINATION 

It has been repeatedly contended by German 
sympathizers that Germany is fighting to ward off 
Slavic domination of western Europe. Here is 
Professor Miinsterberg's presentation of that 
claim: " The German knows what a German 
defeat must mean to the ideal civilization of the 
world. The culture of Germany would be trampled 
down by the half-cultured Tartars. . . . England 
and France cannot crush Germany without helping 
Russia to an irresistible power which ultimately 
must subjugate the whole western civilization. . , . 
If Russia wins to-day, and Germany is broken down, 
Asia must win sooner or later; and if Asia wins, the 
achievements of the western world will be wiped 
from the earth more sweepingly than the civiliza- 
tion of old Assyria." 

Germany's bid for America's sympathy on the 
ground that she is conducting a holy war, to pro- 
tect herself and the rest of Europe from falling 
under Muscovite domination, will not appeal to 
the clear-minded American. 

It would be a calamity indeed for the whole 
world if Europe were to be ruled by the Slav, but 

20 



Germany and the European War 21 

it would likewise be a calamity should the Teuton 
become her master. The imminent danger to-day 
is not the rule of the Romanoffs, but that of the 
Hohenzollems. 

The present war is not, as the German Chancel- 
lor would have it thought, a " life-and-death 
struggle between Germany and the Muscovite 
races of Russia," but obviously a life-and-death 
struggle between Democracy, as represented by 
England and France, and German Militarism, 
This is why the sympathy of the majority of the 
American people must necessarily be with Ger- 
many's opponents. The present coalition is not 
directed against the German people and German 
civilization — no more than the coalition that 
put an end to the power of Napoleon the First 
was directed against the French people and French 
civilization ; it is directed against the rule of might 
represented by German militarism. 

The German Chancellor deplores that " highly 
civilized France " should have made an alliance 
with " half- Asiatic Russia," an alliance which he 
characterizes as " unnatural." The world well 
knows that ever since the Franco- Prussian War in 
1870 Germany has held a club over France, ready, 
while she was still bleeding, to deal the final blow, 
and later while she was convalescing, to stab her 
on the slightest provocation. Under these cir- 
cumstances, was not the alliance with Russia the 



22 Germany and the European War 

most natural of alliances? Had it not been for that 
alliance, and later for the English entente, France 
as a world power would long ago have ceased to 
exist. Who for an instant would doubt that Ger- 
many would ally herself with Russia without hesita- 
tion, should she consider it to her advantage? 

France's alliance with Russia does not imply 
that she would submit to Russian domination. 
Should it be forced upon her, who can doubt that 
she would fight against it as desperately as she 
is now fighting Teutonic rule? If the Muscovite 
danger ever looms up as big and ominous as the 
Teutonic danger does to-day, then the nations of 
western Europe will rise again to oppose it, and 
among them will be Germany — Republican Ger- 
many possibly. And so it will be with the Asiatic 
danger which in Professor Miinsterberg's opinion 
is already threatening. 

One cannot help being struck by the apparent 
indifference of England, France, and other nations 
to the Muscovite danger which to Germany is so 
unmistakable and imminent. One wonders why 
the former nations' eyesight is so dull, while Ger- 
many's vision is so clear. A satisfactory explana- 
tion of that phenomenon has not so far been offered. 
But such apparently is the blindness of France 
and England that we are told by Professor Miinster- 
berg that " Germany is fighting to-day the battle 
of western civilization, and while the French 



Germany and the European War 23 

bayonets and the English torpedoes are directed 
against its life, it fights the battle ultimately for 
France and England too." A truly sublime un- 
selfishness! 

Professor Munsterberg clearly foresees the fate 
of England in case of a German defeat. " Russia 
will be the great winner, and the new strength of 
Russia will be the real danger of the British empire, 
which will be weakened anyhow by the exhaustive 
war. Russia will at once push forward in Asia; 
India will be liberated; and, if India secures its 
independence, Canada and Australia will be lost. 
If the German dam against the Russian -Servian 
flood is broken, twenty years later the area of the 
British empire will be pitifully small." 

Notwithstanding the claim of Professor Miinster- 
berg and of other loyal Germans, it is obvious that 
Germany's supreme desire in the present struggle 
is not the warding off of Slavic rule — that is only 
incidental — but the bringing of Europe under her 
own rule. Hence the present alignment of Powers 
against her. Her eagerness to crush France is not 
stimulated by her desire to save the latter country 
from Muscovite domination, but rather by her 
wish to increase her own power at the expense of her 
neighbors. Her evident intention to annex Bel- 
gium, should she be victorious, is not directed 
against the Slavs, but aims solely at her own 
aggrandizement. 



24 Germany and the European War 

The world also realizes that Germany has played 
the part of a bully among European nations — 
a part which is never popular, and not without 
danger, for the hour of reckoning generally comes, 
and, when it does come, the bully is likely to find 
himself without friends. 

A German victory in the present struggle would 
mean primarily a tremendous setback to demo- 
cratic principles and the triumph of militarism: 
it would imply the crushing of France and of 
French civilization and the weakening of the power 
of England, if not the reduction of that country 
to the rank of a second-rate nation. The victory 
of the Allies, on the contrary, would probably be a 
death-blow to militarism and all the evils it im- 
plies, and might mark the dawn of the era of peace 
and good-will among nations, for which the world 
has so long waited and towards which bleeding 
humanity is stretching imploring arms. 



CLAIM VI 
GERMANY IS FIGHTING FOR CIVILIZATION 

Germany, it is claimed, is fighting for civiliza- 
tion, of which she apparently considers herself 
to be the highest exponent; and to promote the 
cause of civilization she is making desperate efforts 
to crush England and France, the standard-bearers 
of democracy in Europe. But then, we are told, 
she is doing this for their own good and with a 
heavy heart, like a loving father chastising his 
children. In her war for civilization she is em- 
ploying barbaric methods of warfare. It is hardly 
conceivable that Russia, which the German 
Chancellor characterizes as a semi-Asiatic, slightly 
cultured nation, could have committed in Belgium 
the atrocities imputed to the Germans, had she con- 
quered that country under similar circumstances. 

German culture and German civilization are 
expressions which, to the Germans, appear to stand 
for culture and civilization of a higher order than 
those possessed by other nations. They believe 
themselves to have been intrusted with the keeping 
of the sacred fire. A little modesty, however, 
would become them better and would be more 
likely to win sympathizers. They should remem- 
ber that when England and France and Italy had 

25 



26 Germany and the European War 

centuries of a highly developed civilization behind 
them, what constitutes the German empire of 
to-day was still an agglomeration of small, semi- 
barbaric states. And how shall we reconcile 
culture and civilization with the barbaric methods 
employed by the Germans in conducting the 
present war? How can we reconcile with culture 
brutality of thought and conduct? Is not gentle- 
ness and due consideration of the moral and physi- 
cal rights of others the very essence of a refined 
civilization? Is not the German officer as an ex- 
pression of civilization an anachronism? Is cul- 
ture mere erudition? Is a profound scientist 
or philosopher with the instincts of a barbarian 
in his attitude towards other nations a more 
civilized being than the man with little book 
knowledge but actuated by humane feeling in his 
dealing with others? Some of Germany's great- 
est men of letters and science, occupying exalted 
positions in the intellectual world of their country, 
have publicly defended German militarism and all 
that it implies, not excluding even the acts of 
vandalism of the German army. Where, then, 
shall we look for culture in its noblest expression? 
Culture which does not humanize the soul is cer- 
tainly not worth striving for — and this war has 
already shown that in Germany one may be a 
renowned scholar while at heart a barbarian. 
But let those who are inclined to be suspicious 



Germany and the European War 27 

of the genuineness of German culture behold the 
product of forty years of German civilization. A 
fighting machine of iron and flesh, a little iron here 
and a little flesh there — the one lending strength, 
the other flexibility — a machine perfectly unthink- 
ing and assumedly unfeeling, but so skillfully con- 
structed that it responds like clock-work to the 
guiding hand of its operator, and capable of killing 
in a given time, irrespective of age and sex, more 
unbelievers in German civilization and of destroy- 
ing more of their cities and works of art than any 
war machine ever dreamed of ! 

Is Germany merely culture-plated? Has the 
world been the victim of a gigantic fraud? 

If those who would defend Germany's course 
are to have a hearing, they should abandon their 
untenable contention that Germany is fighting 
for civilization and to ward off Muscovite domina- 
tion, lest further attempt on their part to maintain 
that position be resented by their hearers as a 
reflection on their intelligence and predispose them 
against listening to saner arguments. 

The issues of the present struggle are too momen- 
tous, of too great concern to the civilization of the 
world and to humanity in general, to permit its 
merits to be obscured by sophistry or otherwise. 
Let those who desire to form an intelligent and 
unbiased opinion as to the responsibilities of the 
various nations put aside their own personal likes 



28 Germany and the European War 

and dislikes and study the " White Papers " 
issued by the English and German governments. 
The official information they contain is quite 
sufficient for the purpose. 



CLAIM VII 

THE INVASION OF BELGIUM BY GERMANY 
WAS JUSTIFIED 

It has been claimed that the invasion of Belgium 
was a military necessity and therefore justifiable. 
Professor Miinsterberg refers to it as a mere use of 
the Belgian railways, and what he has to offer in 
defense of it is worth quoting: " Everybody knows 
that etiquette stops when the house is on fire, 
and that good manners must be forgotten, even 
by the best mannered, when life and death are 
involved." It is not clear whether Professor 
Miinsterberg meant to imply that the Germans are 
the " best mannered," but it is evident that he 
would like his readers to believe that the violation 
of a neutral country is merely a breach of etiquette, 
and that it was absurd of England to go to war 
for so trifling a cause. Professor Miinsterberg 
further attempts to justify this criminal action 
of Germany on the ground of precedent, citing 
England's conduct in Egypt, in Thibet, and in 
South Africa. It is of little avail. The fact 
remains that Germany's violation of Belgium's 
neutrality constitutes the most flagrant and brutal 
international crime ever witnessed by the civilized 
world. It constitutes a brutal manifestation of 
29 



30 Germany and the European War 

Germany's belief that might makes right. And, 
when thus breaking her pledge guaranteeing the 
neutrahty of Belgium, Germany, the perjurer, 
in the act of perjuring, asked England to take her 
word that after the war she would restore the 
neutrality of that country. It is little wonder 
that the statement created derision in the English 
Parliament. 

According to Sir William Goschen, English am- 
bassador at Berlin, the imperial chancellor of 
Germany referred to the solemn engagement of his 
country to protect the neutrality of Belgium as a 
" mere scrap of paper," and invited England to take 
the same view of it. Only by degrading herself to 
that extent could England have remained out of the 
conflict. Who will blame her for having refused 
to buy peace and tranquillity at the expense of her 
national honor? 

Germany's act of brigandage in invading Bel- 
gium has been greatly aggravated by the brutality 
with which she has treated that country. She must 
have lost many sympathizers when she invaded 
Belgium, and the few that remained must have left 
her when she entered into a campaign of atrocity 
for the evident purpose of terrorizing the inhabi- 
tants of that unfortunate country. 



CLAIM VIII 

THE METHODS USED BY THE GERMANS IN 
CONDUCTING THE WAR ARE JUSTIFIABLE 

Allowing for exaggeration and discounting parti- 
sanship feelings, it is hardly to be doubted, in view 
of the official sources of information, that the 
German army has committed in Belgium acts of 
injustice and cruelty that have rightly aroused the 
indignation of the civilized world. These outrages 
become all the more abhorrent when it is consid- 
ered that they were perpetrated in a country having 
in no way offended Germany, a country whose only 
desire was to be left unmolested, whose only crime 
had been her unwillingness to permit the violation 
of her territory, the neutrality of which her in- 
vader herself had sworn to defend. 

In demanding the payment of a war levy of over 
$100,000,000 from Belgium, the Germans may have 
acted legally, and even in accordance with the 
letter, if not with the spirit of the Hague rulings, 
but considering the part played by Belgium in this 
war, the world will condemn that action as un- 
justifiable and savoring of highway robbery. 

Tortured flesh will be buried, and it will be denied 
that it ever existed. Non-combatants will be 
buried, and it will be claimed that they were 

31 



32 Germany and the European War 

" snipers." Women and children will be buried, 
and it will be insisted that they placed themselves 
in the way of bullets and bombs. And courts of 
inquiry will sustain some of the atrocity claims 
and dismiss others for lack of evidence. But the 
ruins of villages and cities and of works of art 
cannot be buried nor their existence denied. They 
speak for themselves, and the world is not prepared 
to excuse these acts on the ground that they were 
necessary war measures. 

Germany's rueful violations of sacred inter- 
national pledges and of the rights of men are blots 
in her history which cannot be erased by sophistry 
or by any other means. History will condemn 
those deeds, and their horror will increase with 
time — the more so because they were committed 
by a nation pretending to be highly civilized and 
cultured. 



Germany and the European War 33 



Germany has been indicted by the grand jury 
of civilized nations, and her indictment is plainly 
written on the wall of history. She is accused of 
having deliberately precipitated a European war 
for the purpose of increasing her power and of 
securing territorial and commercial expansion. 
She is accused of having violated sacred inter- 
national pledges by her invasion of Belgium. She is 
accused of using barbaric methods of warfare, such 
as the killing and torturing of non-combatants, — 
men, women, and children, — and of wanton 
destruction of villages, cities, and works of art. 
She is accused of sowing mines in the path of un- 
armed ships and of vessels from neutral nations. 
She is accused of levying enormous war taxes on a 
country the integrity of which she had sworn to 
protect. 

Whether this indictment should be drawn against 
the German Emperor alone, or against the Ger- 
man military party including or not the Emperor, 
or against the whole German nation, remains to 
be determined. 



POSTSCRIPT 

As these pages are passing through the press, 
there are many signs that Germany is beginning 
to reaUze that her dreams of conquest may, after 
all, fail to come true; that her war machine, that 
wonderful product of her love for peace, may not 
succeed in killing enough of those objecting to 
German " culture " for her to fasten her rule on 
Europe. Her spokesmen are beginning to tell us 
that Germany never dreamt of empire ; that her 
modest claim was for a breathing place under the 
sun; that her military preparedness was never 
intended for ofifensive warfare but solely to avert 
war. When such claims are made, it is well to 
remember the words of her Emperor in sending his 
soldiers to the front, as they undoubtedly depict 
accurately his feelings and those of the military 
party, if not of the whole nation. Here is the 
Kaiser's conception of Germany's mission of peace 
and destiny. " Remember that the German people 
are the chosen of God. On me, on me as German 
Emperor, the spirit of God has descended. I am 
His weapon. His sword, and His vizard. Woe to 
the disobedient! Death to cowards and unbe- 
lievers! " 

No sophistry can possibly so pervert the mind 

34 



Germany and the European War 35 

as to make it appear that Germany's preparedness 
for war, which includes the building, in time of 
peace, on the territories of her neighbors, of founda- 
tions upon which to place her huge guns, was in- 
tended for the maintenance of peace. On the 
contrary, this military preparedness, at which 
the world has marveled, clearly reveals the wicked- 
ness of the odious designs nourished by the Ger- 
mans for so many years. Had we no other proofs 
of Germany's guilt, that alone would sufiice to 
condemn her. 

These spokesmen have discovered a real love on 
the part of Germany for the Monroe Doctrine. 
Should she be victorious, the United States need 
have no fear. She will respect the doctrine; she 
will even give her word to that effect. Can they 
really believe that any reliance whatsoever can 
be placed on the promise of a perjurer? Germany 
has shocked the world by the most cold-blooded 
violation of sacred pledges ever committed by a 
nation pretending to be highly civilized, and she 
would now ask the United States that she be 
trusted. Her affection for the Monroe Doctrine 
is probably on a par with her love for Belgium, — 
to be discarded and trampled upon at the op- 
portune moment when she feels again strong enough 
to defy the world. How can Germany expect that 
any document bearing her signature will be re- 
garded otherwise than as a mere scrap of paper? 



36 Germany and the European War 

Germany, regenerated by long years of atone- 
ment, may again be admitted to the company of 
civilized peoples, but the branded Germany of the 
Kaisers and of the Krupps, as long as it exists, 
will remain an outlaw among nations. 



APPENDIX 

The exceptionally able editorials published by 
the New York Times have attracted much atten- 
tion, not only in the United States, but also in 
Europe. Nowhere has the momentous question 
with which we are concerned been treated with 
greater courage, intelligence, lucidity, logic, and 
fairmindedness. These writings are also unexcelled 
for breadth of view and high and virile conception 
of the right and duties of men and nations. Through 
the courtesy of the New York Times, some of these 
editorials are here reproduced. 

An editorial from the New York World, and one 
from the Providence Journal, are also given. 

THE HOLY WAR 

(New York Time;, August 14, 1914) 

As we understand the theory of the holy war, 
the Kaiser had a divine mission to rescue England, 
France, and Belgium from the impending menace 
of Slav domination. They were pig-headed about 
it and refused to be rescued. So, with a heavy 
heart, the Kaiser was compelled to thrash them 
in order to save them. In the course of his benevo- 
lent militancy he was pained to discover that 

37 



38 Germany and the European War 

Portugal also did not want to be rescued from Slav 
domination, and that Italy was indifferent whether 
she was rescued or not, while the other nations of 
Europe seem to be more worried about something 
else than about the danger of becoming Slav, 
serious as that danger would be if it existed. It 
is a dreadful thing to be so clear-sighted that 
nobody can see what you see except Franz Josef. 

However, this explanation of the war, put for- 
ward with so much confidence by Professor Miin- 
sterberg and others, may not be true. Let us hope, 
for Germany's sake, that it is not. 

For those who may persuade themselves that 
the danger is real, however, we offer a few con- 
soling reflections. If at the conclusion of the war 
Germany finds itself upon the losing side, the rug- 
ged Russian bear can extend his huge and shaggy 
bulk over western Europe only if the Powers con- 
tinue to be bound by their present alliances and 
understandings. Now, there is nothing in the 
world of politics more naturally subject to sudden 
changes than European alliances for the support 
of particular interests or the maintenance of the 
balance of power. Take Germany, or rather 
Prussia, as an example. Bismarck formed an 
alliance with Austria in order to filch the provinces 
of Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark. Then 
he faced about and went to war with Austria in 
order to make perfectly secure the dominance of 



Germany and the European War 39 

Prussia in United Germany, which was the object 
of his poHcy. In that war he had a good under- 
standing with Napoleon III and an alHance with 
Italy. Later he consented to discuss with France 
a plan for the annexation of Luxemburg and Bel- 
gium by that power. It is to be noted that France, 
which was then willing to gobble up Belgium, is 
now mighty thankful for the Belgian resistance 
to the German advance. Within two years after 
he had talked over these plans for extending the 
French frontier, Bismarck was ready to go to war 
with France. The war came in 1870. 

Bismarck was on the best of terms with Russia 
so long as it was to the advantage of Prussia. 
For that reason he did not join France and England 
in the Crimean War. But in 1878 he joined Eng- 
land in forcing Russia to accept the Treaty of 
Berlin as a substitute for her own Treaty of San 
Stefano, made with Turkey at the conclusion of her 
victorious war with that power. A hundred years 
ago France and England were at war. Half a 
century later they joined Turkey in fighting 
Russia in the Crimea. Italy, now the ally of 
Austria, a passive ally in the present war, is the 
ancient enemy of the Austrians, and fought them 
less than half a century ago. 

The present good understanding and alliance 
between England, France, and Russia is for a 
definite purpose — common defense against the 



40 Germany and the European War 

danger to each and all through the rise of Germany 
to a position of supreme power, where she could 
impose her will upon all other European Powers. 
Its purpose accomplished, the understanding would 
be instantly abandoned if the rise of new interests 
demanded other coalitions. England and France, 
now at war with Germany, would join Germany 
to resist any Slav encroachment that threatened 
western Europe. In the long run their interests 
will be with Germany and against Russia so long 
as any Russian ambition threatens the Western 
Powers. 

As against the bogy of Slav domination there 
may be set up the vastly greater probability that 
the defeat of Germany and Austria in this war 
would be followed by a pretty firm alliance be- 
tween Austria, Germany, and Russia. When it 
was said that the signers of the Declaration of 
Independence must hang together, Benjamin Frank- 
lin observed that if they did not they would hang 
separately. The greatest blessing the war could 
bring would be, as we have before said, the over- 
throw of the Romanoff, Hapsburg, and Hohen- 
zollern dynasties, and the sweeping away of the 
last European remains of divine right rubbish. 
Failing that, it will very plainly be for the interest 
of the three emperors to stand by each other in 
a new Holy Alliance to protect their thrones, their 
dynasties, and the moldering theories of govern- 



Germany and the European War 41 

ment which they represent. Professor Bonn re- 
grets that " France has annihilated herself as a 
power for the moral improvement of the uni- 
verse by making herself a tool for the Russian jug- 
gernaut." The fortunes of the Russian juggernaut 
as an institution are linked with those of the 
German and the Austrian juggernauts. The great- 
est moral and political improvement that could be 
brought about in Europe would be the destruction 
of these ancient vehicles. When the time comes, 
the axe of France will be lifted impartially against 
all three. But primarily it is a moral improve- 
ment to be effected by the peoples of the three 
realms in which " the right divine of kings to govern 
wrong " is still tolerated and respected. 

THE PERIL OF GERMAN MILITARISM 

(New York Times, September 6, 1914) 

A great part of the people of the world are at 
war with Germany — her arms may triumph over 
them; but in the judgment of substantially the 
whole civilized world Germany stands condemned, 
and triumph of her arms will not reverse that 
judgment. She can take her appeal only by re- 
generation and through new ideals. The Germans 
say they are surprised at the attitude of the Ameri- 
can people; they had expected sympathy and ap- 
proval. If that be their feeling, they need set no 



42 Germany and the European War 

bounds to their disappointment, for the American 
people, some of German birth and descent alone 
excepted, are unanimous in condemning Germany's 
action. And the belief that she is responsible for 
the war is scarcely less firm and universal. That 
belief is based upon solid grounds of evidence. 

Why do the American people condemn Germany? 
Because they condemn and abhor militarism, 
because they have an inborn and invincible aver- 
sion to that form of government in which one man 
sets his will above the will of the people. For the 
German people they have only friendship, mingled 
with a feeling of wonder that a people so enlight- 
ened have so long consented to the anachronism of 
imperial rule by " divine right." There is some- 
thing more, however. The American people in- 
stinctively feel and know that the complete triumph 
of Germany in this great conflict involves a not 
distant peril to themselves. President Eliot, in 
his letter to the Times, published on Friday, set 
forth with perfect clearness a truth that has found 
firm lodgment in the minds of Americans: 

" Should Germany and Austria-Hungary suc- 
ceed in their present undertakings, the whole 
civilized world would be obliged to bear con- 
tinuously, and to an ever-increasing amount, the 
burdens of great armaments, and would live in 
constant fear of sudden invasion, now here, now 
there — a terrible fear, against which neither 



Germany and the European War 43 

treaties nor professions of peaceable intentions 
would offer the least security." 

The supremacy of German militarism would 
turn back the hands of the clock. The civilized 
world would thereafter be less civilized, and we 
could not shut our eyes to the danger that we, even 
though we be across the seas, should sooner or 
later be threatened, that we almost certainly would 
be threatened, by this great and dominant military 
power. To meet that danger we should be com- 
pelled to make our preparations. 

The feeling of the American people is again 
expressed with great point and force in the letter 
from Sir Edward Grey addressed to his constituents 
at Berwick: 

" The progress of the war has revealed what a 
terrible, immoral thing German militarism is. 
It is against German militarism that we must fight. 
The whole of western Europe would fall under it 
if Germany should be successful in this way. But 
if, as a result of the war, the independence and 
integrity of the smaller European States can be 
secured and western Europe liberated from the 
menace of German militarism, and the German 
people itself freed from that militarism — for it 
is not the German people, but Prussian militarism, 
which has driven Germany and Europe into war — 
if that militarism can be overcome, then indeed 
there will be a brighter, freer day for Europe which 



44 Germany and the European War 

will compensate us for the awful sacrifices which 
war entails." 

The German Foreign Office declared in the 
Memorandum which the Times published the other 
day that " we took the stand emphatically that no 
civilized nation had the right in this struggle 
against lack of culture {Unkultur) and criminal 
political morality to prevent Austria from acting 
to take away the just punishment from Servia." 
The reference is plain. The Foreign Office meant 
that England as a civilized nation had no right to 
take part against Germany in her struggle with 
" Unkultur," which means Russia. Yet in this 
great European war Russia is in the very forefront 
of the struggle against the great enemy of modern 
civilization and progress, German militarism. 
That is a truth that will be most distasteful to 
Germany. It will increase Germany's surprise 
and chagrin to know that the American people 
regard in that light the r61e of Russia in the con- 
flict. But Germany has herself to blame if in the 
opinion of civilized neutral nations Russia's course 
is approved and her own course condemned. It 
is not a moral judgment alone; it is a judgment 
forced upon the people of the United States by 
considerations of their interest and safety. German 
militarism dominant in Europe, its power increased 
by the addition of the territory of Belgium, prob- 
ably that of Holland, and become demonstrably 



Germany and the European War 45 

irresistible by the humbling of France and England, 
would be, we feel, a menace to our own peace and 
safety. 

"THE TRUTH ABOUT GERMANY" 

(New York Times, September 7. 1914) 

Some of the chief men of the empire have put 
forth a book that is professedly written as the 
appeal of Germany for the sympathy and support 
of the people of the United States. Among the 
authors of the volume are a former chancellor, 
a field marshal, a president of the Reichstag, several 
university professsors, prominent men of business 
and finance, and some are of princely title. A case 
that enlists pleaders of this high distinction must 
in truth need buttressing, and it is an occasion for 
regret that they have not been able to make a 
better defense. The blame does not rest with them. 
No voice or pen, however eloquent or gifted, can 
convince an impartial world of the justice of 
Germany's cause or change the rooted belief of 
right-thinking men that she is battling for ends 
that, attained, would retard the advance of civiliza- 
tion and make the peace, the prosperity, and the 
happiness of the nations less secure. 

These men of Germany ask us to give no heed to 
the lies of their enemies. In this land of enlighten- 
ment public opinion does not take form on any- 



46 Germany and the European War 

body's lies. We keep no mind of perversions sent 
out from London or Paris. We have sought truth 
in its undefiled sources, in the British White Paper 
and in the Memorandum of the German Foreign 
Office, in the observed and acknowledged policies 
of the combatant nations, and in the utterances of 
their men of authority. The princes and profes- 
sors who pay us the compliment of this appeal to 
our candid judgment will not impeach the testi- 
mony of their Foreign Office, we suppose, yet if 
there was suspension of judgment in the first weeks 
of the war, doubt vanished and full conviction 
came when the Times published the official docu- 
ments and records. The American people there 
read of the untiring efforts of Sir Edward Grey 
to reach a peaceful adjustment through a con- 
ference of the Powers, of his appeals to which 
France, Russia, and Italy gave immediate assent- 
ing response, which Germany alone met with 
evasion, excuse, disfavor, and refusal. From 
Germany's Memorandum they learn that the 
Kaiser's Government had from the first sustained 
and encouraged Austria in a policy of war, and had 
denied the rights of any other Power to stand be- 
tween her and the Servian objects of her wrath. 
It is wholly futile, it is an affront to our intelligence, 
for these German suppliants for our favor to tell 
us now that Russia and England brought on the 
war, that Germany did not choose the path of 



Germany and the European War 47 

blood, that the sword was forced into the hands of 
the German Emperor. 

Nor can our favor or sympathy be won by mis- 
representing the motives of England, France, and 
Russia. In the face of Sir Edward Grey's labors 
for peace, why tell us that England " encouraged 
this war " because she was determined to check 
the commercial growth of Germany? Why tell 
us that the war was " provoked by Russia because 
of an outrageous desire for revenge "? We have 
knowledge of the fact, the proofs are before us, 
yet these German advocates talk to us as though 
we had just arrived from the moon. We are un- 
moved by their picture of the Slav peril. Why 
is it that Germany fears the Slav? England is not 
afraid; France has no fear; Italy, Belgium, Holland 
are all undisturbed. We should like to see a satis- 
factory answer to the question why, when all the 
rest of Europe is calm, Germany stands in terror 
of the Slav. The authors of this book make a 
wretched defense of Germany's crime against 
international morality and her invasion of neutral 
Belgium. " In our place the government of the 
United States would not have acted differently." 
Speak for yourselves, gentlemen. Our recent 
repeal of a statute that was by a great part of our 
people deemed to be in conflict with one of our 
treaties speaks for us. 

But it is not upon these present things that our 



48 Germany and the European War 

minds chiefly dwell; we are taking thought of the 
future. We are a great nation. We do not be- 
come less great through overslaughing or diminish- 
ment at the hands of a European military power 
that for years has menaced the peace of the nations 
by her schemes of aggrandizement. We have pos- 
sessions in many quarters of the globe, and com- 
mercial interests in all. This appeal for our 
sympathy and moral support comes with ill-grace 
from the subjects of an imperial ruler whose ambi- 
tion it is to lift Germany to the position of world 
supremacy. We cannot look with complacent 
approval upon the effort of this great military 
chieftain to crush the peaceably inclined nations 
that refuse to bow to his will. The German 
ambition becomes a matter of serious concern to us; 
it is alarming, for it is certain as fate that with 
Russia beaten back, England and France crushed, 
and Belgium and Holland seized, the coming of 
some cause of conflict with ourselves would not 
be long delayed. We cannot be expected to 
welcome the compulsion to spend our substance 
in a race with Germany for military supremacy. 

Besides, by inheritance and training we give 
our sympathy to those who are fighting in the cause 
of human liberty; we withhold it from those who 
bear the symbols and standards we shed our blood 
to cast out from this land. Our forefathers 
prostrated themselves in the dust before their 



Germany and the European War 49 

Maker, but they set their foot upon the neck of the 
king. We have no liking for power that asks no 
sanction of the people. Almost a century and a 
half ago we made an end here of that abomination 
before the Lord — at least we felt it to be an abomi- 
nation — and we are not agreeably impressed by 
blasphemous imperial invocations of divine favor 
upon bloody enterprises. 

These gentlemen of Germany plead in vain. 
We can give them no help. To quote their own 
words in a truer sense than their own, " the country 
of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln 
places itself upon the side of a just cause and one 
worthy of humanity's blessing." 

OUR ANSWER TO GERMANY 

(New York Times, September 8, 1914) 

In our Declaration of Independence we said 
that " a decent respect to the opinions of man- 
kind " required us to declare the causes which 
impelled us to dissolve the political bands that 
united us with the mother country. To prove 
the justice of our cause the Declaration said, " Let 
facts be submitted to a candid world." Germany 
through her mea of " light and leading " has 
appealed for the sympathy and the moral support 
of the people of the United States. We have 
given our answer. It responds to their wish, for 



5© Germany and the European War 

they asked our opinion ; it does not respond to their 
hope, since we are unable to give them our sym- 
pathy or accord to them our moral support. 

The answer has been given through the in- 
numerable voices of public opinion. We have 
told the Germans that in our judgment Austria 
was unreasonably harsh and provocative in her 
demands upon Servia; that we have a profound 
conviction that their great Emperor was guilty 
of a wrong against civilization in supporting the 
Austrian demands and the Austrian course of 
action; that he was wrong again in withholding 
assent from the peaceful proposals of Sir Edward 
Grey, in which France, Italy, and Russia joined; 
that it was a monstrous wrong to send the German 
troops across the Belgian frontier; and that inas- 
much as Great Britain, France, and Russia have 
taken up arms in defense of political ideals which 
have our approval against autocratic and mili- 
tarist theories and designs which we hold in ab- 
horrence, the sympathy and moral support we 
deny to Germany and to Austria are freely given 
to the Allies. This is the answer we make to Ger- 
many. It expresses the beliefs and the feelings 
of the whole American people, save only some of 
those whose judgment is subject to the natural 
influence of the ties of kindred. 

Since the Germans have asked for our opinion, 
we must suppose that they value it. It is a rea- 



Germany and the European War 51 

soned opinion, altogether without prejudice, be- 
cause for the German people we have the highest 
esteem and respect. Is it too much to hope that 
the judgment of this great people may have some 
weight in Germany? The full efifect of what we 
say and feel cannot be expected — it is too late. 
The clash of arms, of course, drowns the voice of 
friendly counsel. But may we not hope that some 
at least of the great minds of Germany, the minds 
of men who are not wholly subdued to the terrible 
ideals of militarism, may be persuaded to re- 
examine the German course of action and to in- 
quire afresh into the justice of the causes for which 
she is at war? That the progress of a war in which 
so many millions are engaged will be influenced by 
American public opinion is quite too much to hope 
for. But as the warring forces approach the end 
of the bloody arbitrament, and when the varying 
fortunes of war have brought the probable decision 
clearly into view, we may reasonably hope that the 
opinions we hold and have given will exert an 
influence that will hasten the advent of peace, 
— peace without harsh conditions, peace that will 
be just and lasting. 



52 Germany and the European War 

DR. DERNBURG'S ARGUMENT 

(New York Times, September 14, 1914) 

Far and away the ablest and the most subtle 
presentation yet made of Germany's case is that 
from the pen of Dr. Bernhard Dernburg, which in 
this issue of the Times we reprint from the Sun of 
yesterday. Having been a part of the German 
Government, a secretary of state for the Colonies, 
Dr. Dernburg knows his subject, he knows precisely 
the impression he wishes to produce, and he has 
surpassing skill in marshaling his argument to 
produce just that impression. His method is so 
exceedingly adroit that if he be not read with con- 
stant wariness of mind the reader may find himself 
granting one assumption after another until he is 
swept helplessly along to a conclusion that Ger- 
many has been the most peaceful nation on earth, 
that the Kaiser is merely the humble servant of his 
people, and that the war was imposed upon Europe 
by a higher fate quite beyond human control. 

There are three leading contentions in Dr. 
Dernburg's argument. The first is that the Ger- 
man Emperor is no more a man ot war than our 
President, and has less power to make war; the 
second is that Sir Edward Grey, adopting the 
reasoning of Mr. Gladstone, made small account 
of the treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Bel- 
gium, and really went to war in furtherance of 
quite other English interests; the third that the 



Germany and the European War 53 

real cause of the war is to be sought in Russia's 
devotion to her ideal of Pan-Slavism. These 
positions invite analytic examination and the 
application of the acid test of reality. 

Dr. Dernburg points out that except when Ger- 
man territory is attacked the Emperor may not 
declare war without the consent of the Bundesrat, 
and that this is " a much greater check than the 
control placed by the Constitution of the United 
States on the President." But our President 
cannot declare war at all. Congress alone has that 
power. Dr. Dernburg asserts that the Emperor 
" must have, and in fact had, the consent of his 
allies represented by the Federal Council," and 
that the consent was unanimous. We do not ques- 
tion the statement, but we recall no report of a 
meeting of the Federal Council. The declaration 
of war was contained in a telegram of the Imperial 
Chancellor to the ambassador in St. Petersburg, 
declaring that " his Majesty the Emperor, my 
August Sovereign, in the name of the Empire, takes 
up the defiance and considers himself in a state of 
war against Russia." Dr. Dernburg insists that 
Wilhelm II has been a man of peace. In his 
aversion to war he is put on a level with President 
Wilson. If the comparison is just, then we must 
assume that in the Emperor's place Woodrow 
Wilson would have given Austria a " free hand," 
would have warned all civilized nations that they 



54 Germany and the European War 

must not interfere between Austria and Servia, 
and would in the crisis of the affair have gone to 
war with Russia, France, and England. Do we 
believe that? Does Dr. Dernburg expect us to 
believe that the firm mind and hand that kept 
us out of war with Mexico would have plunged 
all Europe into a bloody strife in support of Aus- 
tria's unbearable attitude toward Servia? The 
difference is not merely in the men; the training 
and environment count for everything, and what 
they are in the case of the Kaiser one may learn 
from the book of Von Bernhardi, one of the chiefs 
of the war party, in which war is lauded as " the 
greatest factor in the furtherance of culture and 
power." 

Dr. Dernburg cites that passage of Gladstone's 
speech of August 3, 1870, quoted in Sir Edward 
Grey's House of Commons speech, as proof that 
England held in light regard her treaty obligation 
to defend Belgium's neutrality. In truth, Mr. 
Gladstone did make one of those characteristic 
speeches which always left his audience in doubt 
about his position. Our courts disregard legisla- 
tive debates and seek the intent of the lawmakers 
in the language of the statute. We must remind 
Dr. Dernburg that in 1870 England made one 
treaty with Germany to join her in a war against 
France if France invaded Belgium, and a similar 
treaty with France to join her against Germany if 



Germany and the European War 55 

that Power invaded Belgium. Last month Eng- 
land went to war with Germany because she had 
trampled on Belgium. We may disregard all other 
pretended evidence of England's view of the ob- 
ligation of that treaty. 

Dr. Dernburg's skill as an advocate is nowhere 
more clearly exhibited than in his adaptation of his 
argument to his audience. It would be futile to 
say to us, what so many Germans have said, that 
England brought on this war. We have the 
White Paper for sure disproof. But when he tells 
us that the Pan-Slavic agitation and the need the 
Czar had to uphold Russia's prestige forced him 
to take issue with Austria and so made war in- 
evitable, we are confronted by the necessity of 
some inquiry into Russia's responsibility. It is 
easily made. Austria had acted, and " it was the 
bounden duty " of Germany to come to her aid, 
to protect her from destruction and dismember- 
ment. How did Austria fix upon Servia the guilt 
of that attempted dismemberment? By a secret 
ex-parte process, wholly unknown to Anglo- 
Saxon jurisprudence and unworthy of faith and 
credit under any jurisprudence. A judge who 
should attempt to fix guilt after such a trial would 
here be flung from the bench in disgrace. But the 
Kaiser's Government gave Austria " the free 
hand " and full support, and when Russia, having 
her own ideas of the actual Austrian intent, made 



56 Germany and the European War 

her protest, Germany declared that she would 
brook no interference with her ally's plans. 

It was on July 30 that the Czar telegraphed to 
Emperor William: " We need your strong pressure 
on Austria in order that an understanding may 
be brought about with us." It was on August i 
that the Emperor directed his chancellor to inform 
the ambassador at St. Petersburg that he con- 
sidered himself in a state of war with Russia. If 
Dr. Dernburg's argument had ten times the force 
it has, it would never convince the American 
people that Woodrow Wilson would have directed 
the sending of that message. 

A FUTILE APPEAL 

(The World, August i6, 1914) 

The German Imperial Chancellor pays no high 
compliment to the intelligence of the American 
people when he asks them to believe that " the 
war is a life-and-death struggle between Ger- 
many and the Muscovite races of Russia and was 
due to the royal murders at Serajev^o." 

To say that all Europe had to be plunged into 
the most devastating war of human history be- 
cause an Austrian subject murdered the heir to 
the Austrian throne on Austrian soil in a con- 
spiracy in which Servians were implicated is too 
absurd to be treated seriously. Great wars do 



Germany and the European War 57 

not follow from such causes, although any pre- 
text, however trivial, may be regarded as suffi- 
cient when war is deliberately sought. 

The record in this case shows that every de- 
mand which Austria made on Servia was granted 
except one, which was only conditionally refused, 
and although this demand involved the very sov- 
ereignty of Servia, the government offered to sub- 
mit the case to mediation. Diplomacy that sought 
peace and could not obtain peace out of such a 
situation would have to be in the last stages of 
imbecility. In such circumstances the responsi- 
bility for war rests upon the nation that begins it. 

Nor is the Imperial Chancellor's declaration 
that " the war is a life-and-death struggle between 
Germany and the Muscovite races of Russia "con- 
vincing in the slightest degree. So far as the 
Russian menace to Germany is concerned, our 
friend the Staats-Zeitung is much nearer the 
truth when its editor, Mr. Ridder, boasts that " no 
Russian army ever waged a successful war against 
a first-class power." 

The life-and-death struggle between Germany 
and the Muscovite races of Russia is a diplo- 
matic fiction invented after German autocracy, 
taking advantage of the Servian incident, set 
forth to destroy France. It was through no fear 
of Russia that Germany had massed most of her 
army near the frontiers of France, leaving only 



58 Germany and the European War 

six army corps to hold Russia in check. It was 
through no fear of Russia that Germany violated 
her solemn treaty obligations by invading the 
neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg. Ger- 
many's policy as it stands revealed by her mili- 
tary operations was to crush France and then 
make terms with Russia. The policy has failed 
because of the unexpected resistance of the Bel- 
gians and the refusal of Great Britain to buy 
peace at the expense of her honor. 

The " German culture and civilization " for which 
the Imperial Chancellor pleads are held in the 
highest respect everywhere; but French culture 
and civilization are quite as important to the 
world as German culture and civilization. France 
has contributed more to humanity than Germany, 
and in a contest between German autocracy and 
French republicanism it is futile for the Imperial 
Chancellor to appeal to the American people for 
sympathy on the ground that German culture and 
civilization are fighting for their life " against a 
half-Asiatic and slightly cultured barbarism." 

CONVICTED 

[Providence Journal, October 14, 1914] 

The Miinsterbergs, the Bernstorffs, the Ridders 
and all the subsidized agents of the German Gov- 
ernment are persisting in their frantic appeals to 



Germany and the European War 59 

the Journal and many other newspapers in the 
attempt to curb the honest and heartfelt indigna- 
tion of the American people. These representa- 
tives of German " culture," together with the 
Kuhn-Loebs of the commercial world, in their 
fatuous " patriotism," or blindness, believe that 
the newspapers are responsible for the most 
spontaneous and universal protest that the Ameri- 
can people has ever made in its history. 

If German money, or the specious arguments 
of German professors, could change the course of 
every newspaper in the United States to-morrow, 
the sentiment of the country would still remain 
the same. For the German Kaiser and his gov- 
ernment have been convicted, not by the false 
reasoning of the American press, not by lies or 
special pleading, but out of their own mouths. 
America needs only a single justification for her 
attitude. She finds it in the one word — 
BELGIUM. 

William of Germany and his people have an 
account to square with God that no sophistry 
can wipe out. For they have wilfully, and in their 
mad passion for conquest, turned a fair land into 
a shambles, taken a peaceable little nation by the 
throat, torn it into bleeding fragments and crushed 
its very heart beneath their iron tread. The 
stories of individual German atrocities may not 
all be true, though there is proof that many of 



6o Germany and the European War 

them are. But whatever is true and whatever is 
false, this one thing stands out, so overshadowing 
in its monstrous cruelty and barbarism that it 
forces the hoarse cry of " GUILTY " from every 
man and woman in the world whose being throbs 
with a spark of human love or the spirit of justice. 

The preservation of Germany's national power, 
her boasted military machine, her position in art, 
and the sciences, and commerce, are no longer 
dependent for preservation on her victories in the 
field. They are destroyed already, and she will 
toil on towards the light through many generations 
of bitter years before she rises from her knees again. 

Not because great armaments will have beaten 
her down — not because she has been hurled back 
in her crusade of butchery and invasion. No. 
But because, purporting to be a great civilized 
race, worthy of " a place in the sun," she has pro- 
claimed to the world that a treaty is only a scrap 
of paper, and, by the hand of a paranoiac who 
poses as the chosen of God himself, has deluged 
with the blood of murdered thousands a land whose 
peace she had sworn to protect and hold inviolate. 

All the tramping of Germany's legions, all the 
thunder of her bombs and batteries, cannot drown 
out the cry of one little Belgian child. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 546 362 fi 



HoUinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



